San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1887-11-29
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER, 29, 1887.
THE SUNDAY ARGUMENT.


The San Antonian In Its Saturday is
sue fires off q brOadside at the LIGHT on
account OF it's editorial anent the sun
day law, charging that the same was
merely an anarchist argument, differing
in no whit from the views entertained
by Herr Most and others. The LIGHT
cares nothing for the names with which
1t is sssailed; cares nothing for the crit
icism, having uttered itself advisedly,
and only cares not to be misunderstood.
The LIGHTS position. as will be remem-
bered by all who read the
article and were capable of I'M
Outstanding 1t, was that the
Sunday law as enacted by the
legislature OF Texas was perniciOus
example of class legislation" making
"the will, caprice or prejudice OF one
man or GLASS, the law By which another
man or class Is ~ De governed" The
anarchist is the man who is opposed to
all law. The editor of the San Anton
ian may consider these two positions
identical. 1t matters not, as neither his
opinions nor those Of the LIGHT change
facts. Law is rule OF conduct given
by authority, that authority the ex-
pressed will of the majority, in a repub-
licsn form Of government. The LIGHT
might rest its case right here and de-
mand the proof that the majority of
the people Of Texas or of San Antonio
had ever consented to the enactment Of
the law. This, however, still leaves the
matter unsettled. because. the question
lies deeper still and rests upon the
inalienable rights Of citizens as indi
viduals, In connection with other citi-
Zens, and their communal or sOci-
al, rights. Before any law can be law
fully put upon the statute book OF any
state the question Of individual rights
must be settled. Man does not derive
his right to live, work, enjoy, eat, drink
and all else from the state. He does not
derive it from the church. He does not
derive 1t from any bible or sacred book.
He derives II from himself. He has
certain rights that are not Alienable.
The church, the state. the book, society,
has no lien upon these rights. When the
church, the state, the book, society, con-
traVenes these rights the individual
rises above the law, the state.
the church, society and resists; that
is, he has the natural, the
manhood right to do this. The church,
the state, society may become tyranical
and punish him for exercising his Datu-
raj right, and society being stronger he
will have to obey. But might does not
make right. 1t did not make it when it
forced Socrates to take his hemlOck, or
when 1t crucfied the Nazarine. or when
it forced Calico into q dungeon, or
when IL burned Cranmer at the stake, or
when II cremated witches in Salem, or
imprisoned O'Brien in TuIlsmOre jail.
The might of the law does not make it
right. 1t is the highest duty c! goS1
citizen to resist unjust laws, that the in
justice may be done away. The church
has no rights save such as given her by
the state. and the state has no power
only as it derives II from the citi-
zens. All governments exist and
only exist by consent Of the governed,
and the governed have not consented to
the unequal exsctlons of this law. By
what right have the legislative authOri-
ty to say churches and street care may
run all Sunday; barber shops, bakeries,
meat shops may run until 8 O'Clock.
General business and saloons shall OF
run at all. Churches may open, theatres
must close, etc, etc. The state goes
beyond its authority in so declaring,
and this is what the LIGHT said. The
tight seemed to rage around the saloons,
because the saloons were made the
target In the fight. The whole Argu-
nent Of the San Antonian is based upon
he idea that the church owns the day
1alled Sunday and that the
state must hedge that day round with a
Chinese wall TO protect 1t from deseera-
ton. This government has no religion.
II lie not religious body. IL has no